# What makes an aromatic tobacco "aromatic"?



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

A question about Black Bogie Aromatic got me thinking. It's not a tobacco that I think of as "aromatic" despite the official designation. It definitely has extra aromas and flavours compared to the plain variety; I prefer the "aromatic". But I wouldn't classify it in the same space as something like Peterson's Luxury Mixture. That's definitely "aromatic" as far as I'm concerned.

I've seen quite a few posts talking about tobaccos like 1792 Flake and Royal Yacht as aromatics. I don't think of them as such. Highly flavoured perhaps, but if someone asked me for a strong non-aromatic blend recommendation, 1792 Flake might make the cut despite the vanilla topping in the mix. It simply isn't quite high enough in the discussion points for me to make it into that class. I've even seen Esoterica Stonehaven classed as an aromatic which I can't see at all. Quite highly flavoured in the casing, but not an aromatic (Based on it being the same as Germain's Rich Dark Flake which is one of my staple "Non-Aromatics"). I may well be wrong (Yes, that has been known to happen...)

I personally put a tobacco into the aromatic category if it has toppings added which are rather delicate and volatile such as vanilla, fruit or florals; generally "sweet" flavourings. As I type I realise that it's a difficult call to make in many cases. Some people might state that they "don't smoke aromatics" while smoking blends that others would call by that name.

So...

*What characteristics does a blend need to make it into your "aromatic" list? *

The world awaits your input.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Okay, I've thought about it, started this post several times, and have finally concluded that I just don't give a rat's patootie. Not meaning that as snark, it just seems like a meaningless question when you start getting down to assigning labels. As you say, it's a difficult call to make. Besides, I'm the wrong person to ask; I"m one of those people who catches a whiff of a skunk on the breeze and inhales deeply to get the most aroma...


----------



## 4noggins.com_Mike (Aug 16, 2013)

I've also been confused by the term "aromatic." Yes, Stonehaven so classed doesn't qualify, at least for me, as I think the distinction is between blends that primarily appeal to taste or to the nose. Nose = aromatic. However I often find pipe smoke aromatic in general, which is subjective. Trying to use this distinction quickly brings us to the question aromatic to whom? Perhaps if 8 or 9/10 people find something aromatic it should be called such

"Aromatic" is a variation on the root "aroma," which certainly is something appealing to smell.


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

If I understood you're post Robert, I agree with you. Although I have not tried any of the blends you mentioned, I have noticed that with PeterStokkbeyes Luxury twist flake for instance. It has a wonderful vanilla or almost butterscotch aroma, but it does not carry that taste with it's smoke. And I have noticed no ghosting of any kind in my pipe from it. So... An aromatic to me is a blend that has a few characteristics, 

1. it has a very strong, distinctive aroma( but like above can also be an aspect of a non aro in my book)
2. Has a distinct flavor, such as chocolate, fruit etc.
3. Leaves a strong aroma/taste in the pipe, or ghosts it even after running a different blend through it.

For me it is all about the smell. I can tell whether a blend is going to be an aro or not just by smelling it, they have....I don't know, a deep aroma that really gets down into the nostrils and almost over powers the lungs, if that makes sense. Apposed to again P.S. LTF, which has a deep aroma, but does not jabb the lungs with it like an aromatic does.


----------



## MiamiMikePA (May 16, 2012)

Aromatics to me...smell great, taste nothing like they smell, burn hot & wet, have tongue bite, and are just a complete waste of time!!! lol j/k I think I tend to classify aromatics as any tobacco that have added flavorings. Stonehaven...def not aromatic!!!


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

To me, it's like asking what makes a dessert dessert? Sure, there are obvious categories like chocolate dishes, cakes, etc. But what about a fresh fruit medley? That could be dessert or it could be breakfast- I like a nice cigar for dessert, personally :smoke2:

The blantant casing of some blends makes me automatically think Aro, but then there are some other blends that are faint and delicate with the flavored topping and could go either way. I agree with Mark- its a game of chasing your tail to try to assign the definition sometimes, I just smoke 'em ipe:


----------



## BrSpiritus (Apr 9, 2009)

I've thought about this as well and I've come to the conclusion that all tobacco is aromatic, if it wasn't then it wouldn't smell like anything ne pravada li? Every tobacco is aiming for a smell and a flavor either though adding flavors or blending particular tobaccos, the end result is designed to elicit a response from the smoker "smells great", "Reminds me of _____", and whathaveyou. For me memory is very strongly linked to music and smell. Just as certain songs bring back memories, certain smells can trigger them as well. In the end all tobacco has smells other than the actual tobacco thereby making them in some way aromatic. I think the real debate here is not aro vs English it's more about the quality of the end product.


----------



## MiamiMikePA (May 16, 2012)

To me the only reason to classify pipe tobacco is if you are dedicating pipes. For me I tend to break down pipe tobacco into 3 groups...

English/Lat - to make this as simple as possible anything that has Latakia falls into this group.
Aro - Anything that has non tobacco flavorings added.
VA - Anything that does not contain Latakia or added non tobacco flavorings.

For me that's the simplist way to break tobacco down w/o needing 10,000 pipes.


----------



## jco3rd (Apr 1, 2013)

This is a good question that I don't think has any right answer. For me it is kind of the "I'll know it when I see it" type. If you go by a strict "anything with flavoring," then something like Dunhill Flake would be an Aro. I think most of the aros I try are burley based, and fairly heavily cased, so that makes it different for me than a VA blend with a light touch of some kind of flavoring. 

I don't think that really answers your question Robert, but that is how I split up my pipes (like Mike!)


----------



## Beefy (Sep 9, 2013)

"Aro - Anything that has non tobacco flavorings added." My thought exactly. I find varying degrees of aros ex. lite, medium, strong but that's how I distinguish it.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

MiamiMikePA said:


> To me the only reason to classify pipe tobacco is if you are dedicating pipes. For me I tend to break down pipe tobacco into 3 groups...
> 
> English/Lat - to make this as simple as possible anything that has Latakia falls into this group.
> Aro - Anything that has non tobacco flavorings added.
> VA - Anything that does not contain Latakia or added non tobacco flavorings.


So where does Burley go? I realize it's an offspring of VA at some point along the line, but seems far enough apart to warrant a different classification.


----------



## MiamiMikePA (May 16, 2012)

Tobias Lutz said:


> So where does Burley go? I realize it's an offspring of VA at some point along the line, but seems far enough apart to warrant a different classification.


VA - ANYTHING that does not contain Latakia or added non tobacco flavorings.

As previously stated the only reason I classify tobaccos is because of pipe dedications. VA or Burley tobaccos can be smoked out of the same pipe as no ghosting occurs from either to alter the taste.  Has nothing to do with how different they taste. Hamborger Veermaster & Full VA Flake taste completely different to me, but I don't smoke them out of different pipes. Again, I only classify tobaccos so I know what pipe to use.


----------



## MiamiMikePA (May 16, 2012)

Plus I don't smoke any straight burley...all the burley I smoke also contains VA. So it's kind of a moot subject for me.


----------



## jco3rd (Apr 1, 2013)

thanks for reminding me - I have 2 dedicated burley pipes, for whatever that is worth.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

MiamiMikePA said:


> I think I tend to classify aromatics as any tobacco that have added flavorings. Stonehaven...def not aromatic!!!


And yet Stonehaven has added flavorings...


----------



## MiamiMikePA (May 16, 2012)

MarkC said:


> And yet Stonehaven has added flavorings...


Sorry...non tobacco flavorings, as stated earlier in post didn't realize I needed to continue to repeat myself figured that was understood, so no it doesn't.

Does everybody on this forum read half of a post and then decide to comment? Are the pipe people on here turning into CA cigar people or something?


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

My original post posed the question, possibly obliquely, as to why we choose to call some tobacco blends "Aromatic" and some not. I knew it wasn't going to be an easy ask.

I've read in many sources that no tobacco - pipe tobacco at least - is un-cased. Many are also topped. Casings are very often made with "flavoured materials", although the intention isn't necessarily to impose that flavour on the tobacco. It's purpose it to expose and enhance the flavour of the tobacco. Burley, even when "unflavoured" is very often cased with a sauce that includes chocolate. The finished tobacco isn't noticeably chocolate flavoured. It's Burley flavoured. A good Burley, as we know, has "natural" chocolatey notes.

Does this mean that "straight Burley" is a flavoured tobacco and perhaps by some measure "aromatic"? Personally, I wouldn't think of it as such. It just happens that Burleys need a chocolate casing to make them taste like "pure Burley" as we understand it.

So given that all pipe tobaccos aren't "pure tobacco" (which I understand to be pretty vile to smoke) and are adulterated (even the sacred Stonehaven - seems pretty heavily cased to me), what adulteration needs to be present for a manufacturer to label their tobacco "Aromatic" in its name rather than just in the description? It's a given that all pipe blends have aromas, otherwise we probably wouldn't bother smoking them. Descriptions often point this out to us: "A blend of XXX and YYY with a unique and enticing aroma" or some such puff. 

As the definition appears so ephemeral, it seems odd that a lot of pipe smokers are able make firm statements like "I hate aromatics and I only smoke non-aromatics" or vice-versa.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

MiamiMikePA said:


> Sorry...non tobacco flavorings, as stated earlier in post didn't realize I needed to continue to repeat myself figured that was understood, so no it doesn't.
> 
> Does everybody on this forum read half of a post and then decide to comment? Are the pipe people on here turning into CA cigar people or something?





MiamiMikePA said:


> Plus I don't smoke any straight burley...all the burley I smoke also contains VA. So it's kind of a moot subject for me.





MiamiMikePA said:


> VA - ANYTHING that does not contain Latakia or added non tobacco flavorings.
> 
> As previously stated the only reason I classify tobaccos is because of pipe dedications. VA or Burley tobaccos can be smoked out of the same pipe as no ghosting occurs from either to alter the taste. Has nothing to do with how different they taste. Hamborger Veermaster & Full VA Flake taste completely different to me, but I don't smoke them out of different pipes. Again, I only classify tobaccos so I know what pipe to use.


Just for the record, I read your entire post before I responded. I have burley dedicated pipes because I believe stronger VA blends can ghost enough to screw with the subtle nuttiness that I enjoy so much in a Burley blend. If I would have known you didn't smoke any pure Burleys than I wouldn't have posed the question, but since you didn't say that, I didn't know. I was thrown by the category title "VA" because just because it doesn't contain Latakia or an added non-tobacco flavoring doesn't make it a Virginia. I just didn't read it to mean "everything else", I read it to mean "VA". All that occured was that I missed your implication, however, implying I don't read what your posting simply because I ask for elaboration in order to further the discussion isn't really necessary.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

MiamiMikePA said:


> Sorry...non tobacco flavorings, as stated earlier in post didn't realize I needed to continue to repeat myself figured that was understood, so no it doesn't.
> 
> Does everybody on this forum read half of a post and then decide to comment? Are the pipe people on here turning into CA cigar people or something?


Your indignation would be more effective if you knew what you were talking about.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

steinr1 said:


> So given that all pipe tobaccos aren't "pure tobacco" (which I understand to be pretty vile to smoke) and are adulterated (even the sacred Stonehaven - seems pretty heavily cased to me), what adulteration needs to be present for a manufacturer to label their tobacco "Aromatic" in its name rather than just in the description? It's a given that all pipe blends have aromas, otherwise we probably wouldn't bother smoking them. Descriptions often point this out to us: "A blend of XXX and YYY with a unique and enticing aroma" or some such puff.
> 
> As the definition appears so ephemeral, it seems odd that a lot of pipe smokers are able make firm statements like "I hate aromatics and I only smoke non-aromatics" or vice-versa.
> 
> Your thoughts?


At the most basic level I think it is safe to say that for a tobacco to be considered an aromatic, it needs to have a specific type of room-note reflective of the casings. For a smoker it is somewhat difficult to always appreciate this because you're engrossed in the experience of smoking and not really able to objectively sniff the room. Like you said about the Burleys- there is a chocolate casing- but does a person who isn't smoking the blend able to really pick up on that casing seperate from the burning tobacco odor? I don't think they necessarily can in the same way they would be able to identify a vanilla cased cavendish or a cherry cased blend.


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

steinr1 said:


> I've read in many sources that no tobacco - pipe tobacco at least - is un-cased.


This is true in almost all cases, if one believes GLP, which I do on most things pipe tobacco related:

From GLP website FAQ:

"This leads to questions about casing and sauces...

*I only smoke uncased tobaccos.*

In fact, very few mass-produced tobaccos on the market today are NOT cased. Casing is the process of adding sugars and flavouring agents before the leaf is further processed. The raw leaf is be soaked or sprayed with a solution of sugars and flavourings like liquorice, molasses, vanilla, tonquin, and so on. The amount of sauce absorbed by the leaf depends on the method of application, the structure of the leaf, and the length of time the leaf is in contact with the sauce before further processing. The leaf is then processed as usual. It can be conditioned and cut, or pressed and held to allow further fermentation. It can be heated, steamed, toasted, or just allowed to "bulk" in the atmosphere.

Many raw tobaccos, especially burleys, are harsh, and can have poor smoking characteristics. Very few smokers have ever experienced virginias or burleys that do not have SOME sort of casing applied. It's not the casing that turns smokers of "pure" tobacco off; it's the over-application of flavourings. When used delicately, they enhance the flavour of the tobacco itself. When used heavily, as in most American style aromatic tobaccos, they can overpower the underlying tobacco flavours.
*
Q: So, are your tobaccos cased?*

A: In some cases, yes. It's can be an important and necessary step in providing the best possible smoking experience, and that's what it's all about, right? Most of the mixtures, on the other hand, are not cased, and Union Square is one of very few, if any, pure virginia tobaccos available anywhere that is produced completely without additional sugars or sauces.
*
I don't smoke flavoured tobaccos...*

Many tobaccos sold are flavoured in some way. Again, raw tobacco is not always the most pleasant thing to smoke, so it can need a little help. Flavourings can be applied with the casing, or after processing, in which case they are known as top-dressings. The difference is subtle, but important. Top dressings provide specific aromas in the tin, but tend to dissipate or flame off when the tobacco is smoked, or even just allowed to air out. The flavourings in the casing is deeper in the leaf, fully absorbed, and is therefore less ephemeral. As with so many things, the dose makes the poison. Just as a little salt can enhance a dish without making it salty, the right amount of flavouring can enhance the taste of the tobacco without overpowering it.

*So, you do use flavourings...*

Of course. In addition to the flavouring agents in the casing sauces, we do, in some cases, add a top dressing as well. We use natural products. Some of the blends are topped with rum, brandy or whisky. Others have additional natural flavours added. If you're asking the question, we must be doing it right."


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

indigosmoke said:


> "This is true in almost all cases"


I do believe you have made a Funny. Great info by the way


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

As for the OP's original question, I'll go with this from the above FAQ:

Non-Aromatic:

When used delicately, they enhance the flavour of the tobacco itself.

Aromatic:

When used heavily, as in most American style aromatic tobaccos, they can overpower the underlying tobacco flavours.

Although I'd add a third:

When you open a tin and smell the tin aroma and think, "What a wonderful _'insert flavor here'_ scent!" Then you fire up a bowl and get nothing but a mouthful of bland and tasteless smoke unless you snork while standing on your head at midnight on the summer solstice amid a grove of oak trees in the nude. Now, that's what I think of when someone mentions an aromatic blend and why I think most people don't consider Stoney or 1792 aromatic blends (although I did refer to 1792 as a "pretty nice vanilla aromatic" when I first tried it, but I did that mostly to annoy Commonsenseman  ) Love them or hate them, those two blends deliver a flavorful smoke!


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Gandalf The Gray said:


> I do believe you have made a Funny. Great info by the way


LOL, I didn't notice I did that! Great spot. Love the username, BTW.


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

indigosmoke said:


> LOL, I didn't notice I did that! Great spot. Love the username, BTW.


Lol, You are a natural comedian! And thanks :hat:


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

Aromatic (are-mae'tik)
Relating to an organic compound containing at least
one benzene ring or similar ring-shaped component.
Naphthalene and TNT are aromatic compounds.

There you go; a benzene ring or a similar component.
Mmmmm... Benzene!


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

Emperor Zurg said:


> Aromatic (are-mae'tik)
> Relating to an organic compound containing at least
> one benzene ring or similar ring-shaped component.
> Naphthalene and TNT are aromatic compounds.
> ...


English man! Speak English!


----------



## jco3rd (Apr 1, 2013)

steinr1 said:


> My original post posed the question, possibly obliquely, as to why we choose to call some tobacco blends "Aromatic" and some not. I knew it wasn't going to be an easy ask.
> 
> I've read in many sources that no tobacco - pipe tobacco at least - is un-cased. Many are also topped. Casings are very often made with "flavoured materials", although the intention isn't necessarily to impose that flavour on the tobacco. It's purpose it to expose and enhance the flavour of the tobacco. Burley, even when "unflavoured" is very often cased with a sauce that includes chocolate. The finished tobacco isn't noticeably chocolate flavoured. It's Burley flavoured. A good Burley, as we know, has "natural" chocolatey notes.
> 
> ...


This has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it Robert.

I do think that the definition is definitely akin to that of obscenity ("I'll know it when I see it"), along with a healthy dose of marketing. Even if Stonehaven is technically cased, does anyone really consider it an aromatic? Also, I notice that a lot of blends that are not cavendish say "burley blend" or "virginia blend" instead of calling it an aromatic, since I think a lot of smokers prefer to not be associated with aros. As someone who enjoys tobacco over the spectrum, I've never been tempted to make a blanket statement about my smoking habits, but I can see the point of view of those who do, and I don't think they are wrong if they say that they stick to non-aromatics, but enjoy Dunhill Flake and Stonehaven.


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

indigosmoke said:


> Most of the mixtures, on the other hand, are not cased, and Union Square is one of very few, if any, pure virginia tobaccos available anywhere that is produced completely without additional sugars or sauces.


Well I never...

I'll have to moderate my rage when I next see the phrase "I smoke pure, uncased tobacco". I'll merely shout that *most* tobacco is cased. Those making claims that their smoke is "natural" will still suffer my wrath. There is nothing natural in setting fire to leaves and sucking up the smoke; be the leaves flavoured or not. We're humans and enjoy all sorts of unnatural activities. I certainly do.

The Pease tobaccos aren't available this side of the pond as far as I know. The attitude of the maker seems very balanced and enlightened. It appears to be a case (Hah!) of "Casing has its place - It's often needed" and "Obviously I flavour tobaccos - Do you want to smoke something without flavour?"

It's interesting how different people view what they smoke and how they classify it. For me, "Aromatic" and Non-aromatic" are shorthand descriptors used by blenders to catch the attention of their intended audience; all non-aromatics are aromatic to some extent and some are in the extreme. Germain's Rich Dark Flake (let's just call it Stonehaven, shall we? oke is a case in point. A fantastic, complex, aromatic tobacco. If it had been described as "Aromatic" I probably wouldn't have bothered with it. 1792 Flake isn't described as an aromatic (I think) and, again, I would never have bothered with it if it had been. In that case I'd rather it had been misdescribed.

Chacun a son gout...


----------



## madbricky (Mar 29, 2013)

I dont have a horse in this race but if you apply the english royal law it falls to any non tobacco flavor, right?
English
American (flue cured)
Aromatic

Now.its.all.screwed.up


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

Gandalf The Gray said:


> English man! Speak English!


Mmmmm... an English. Sounds good right about now.
I'll be out for a bit with a bowl of Nightcap ipe: Thanks for the suggestion


----------



## freestoke (Feb 13, 2011)

For me, an aromatic tobacco is one that has the main purpose of smelling good. Things like 1Q, Three Blind Moose, or one of those Boswell things with fruit, make the room smell thus and so, but the taste of the tobacco is ordinary (and if it was any good to begin with, the maple syrup top dressing will have taken care of it). Ennerdale certainly does things to the room note, but the purpose is a good smoke, beginning with the overwhelmingly tawdry tin aroma. What I call "real" tobaccos that are also strongly flavored, like Royal Yacht or Scotch Flake Aromatic, one could hardly call aromatics, except in the (soft) scientific meaning of the word, since to most people they smell bad when they are smoked, and Ennerdale smells ghastly, even to me. I love a good cheese, but I wouldn't want my house to smell like a cheese factory, and my smoking of Ennerdale is along those lines. Royal Yacht is hardly better than a cigar for the people who have to sit in the smoke cloud, so its flavoring are clearly meant for the smoker, not the crowd.

Let us say that I see no point in smoking 1Q on a windy beach, but Happy Bogie would definitely serve a purpose.


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

indigosmoke said:


> Now, that's what I think of when someone mentions an aromatic blend and why I think most people don't consider Stoney or 1792 aromatic blends (although I did refer to 1792 as a "pretty nice vanilla aromatic" when I first tried it, but I did that mostly to annoy Commonsenseman  ) Love them or hate them, those two blends deliver a flavorful smoke!


Now the truth comes out!!!



freestoke said:


> For me, an aromatic tobacco is one that has the main purpose of smelling good. Things like 1Q, Three Blind Moose, or one of those Boswell things with fruit, make the room smell thus and so, but the taste of the tobacco is ordinary (and if it was any good to begin with, the maple syrup top dressing will have taken care of it). Ennerdale certainly does things to the room note, but the purpose is a good smoke, beginning with the overwhelmingly tawdry tin aroma. What I call "real" tobaccos that are also strongly flavored, like Royal Yacht or Scotch Flake Aromatic, one could hardly call aromatics, except in the (soft) scientific meaning of the word, since to most people they smell bad when they are smoked, and Ennerdale smells ghastly, even to me. I love a good cheese, but I wouldn't want my house to smell like a cheese factory, and my smoking of Ennerdale is along those lines. Royal Yacht is hardly better than a cigar for the people who have to sit in the smoke cloud, so its flavoring are clearly meant for the smoker, not the crowd.
> 
> Let us say that I see no point in smoking 1Q on a windy beach, but Happy Bogie would definitely serve a purpose.


I agree with Jim. To me an aromatic tobacco is one that are _designed_ to not offend those around you. Chances are, if my wife comments positively on a tobacco, it's an aromatic. Of course, there are tobaccos that smell great & are not aromatics, that's just a very, very happy accident.

How does mixture 79, or the "devils blend" fit into this you might ask? It doesn't. The only place it fits is the garbage can, or the fire pit if you wear a gas mask while it's burning.


----------



## Mante (Dec 25, 2009)

commonsenseman said:


> Now the truth comes out!!!
> 
> How does mixture 79, or the "devils blend" fit into this you might ask? It doesn't. The only place it fits is the garbage can, or the fire pit if you wear a gas mask while it's burning.


lmao. ound: True indeed: :thumb:


----------



## madbricky (Mar 29, 2013)

The conclusive answer is that your applying this word in a frame of reference not in defining the blend. Those of us that blend use this word straight up to differentiate the Kings blend requiring only tobacco in the purity of the final blend. English blend, either flavored by fermenting, smoking, rare leaves such as St. James Perique or Oriental Smyrna etc... lots of ways to make pure tobacco very odorous and tasty yet its not designated "Aromatic".
If its starting to confuse me imagine the newbie. Call it anything you like but the defining materials in the tobacco is how it will be labled.


----------



## Gigmaster (Jan 12, 2009)

My criteria is that if the tobacco derives it's character and aroma from non-tobacco products like liquers, vanilla, fruit, etc...than it is 'aromatic'. If it derives it's character from all tobacco, or blends of different tobaccos, such as perique, latakia, virgina, etc...then it is 'non-aromatic'.


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

Gigmaster said:


> My criteria is that if the tobacco derives it's character and aroma from non-tobacco products like liquers, vanilla, fruit, etc...than it is 'aromatic'. If it derives it's character from all tobacco, or blends of different tobaccos, such as perique, latakia, virgina, etc...then it is 'non-aromatic'.


Yep, that chimes in for me as do the similar "definitions" in other posts. I'd amend this one very slightly. _"If it derives it's *character *from all tobacco, or blends of different tobaccos,* even if these have been adulterated with "additives"* ...then it is 'non-aromatic'."_

The point I was pursuing wasn't to do with the dry, technical definition of a blend but rather how you would describe a blend in a couple of words if asked for an opinion by another pipe smoker and the criteria that would guide you. It started with my own "confusion" over Black Bogie Aromatic. Technically, it's definitely an Aromatic. But if a smoker asked for a recommendation for an Aromatic blend there is no way it would make *my *cut. My own, sadly demised, favourite, Edgeworth Sliced, is another case in point. The Burley is cased and technically, I do understand, that would make it an Aromatic. I didn't know that it was cased for years and for me, from the smoker's point of view, it simply wasn't an Aromatic. (The ready-rubbed might just have scraped in, but I had no truck with that muck.)

On this matter, I think we have our definitive, agreed answer:

"It's hard to say..."


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

I look at this like eating various meats.

Go take a steak and boil it until the internal temp is 150 degrees. Then eat it without any seasoning whatsoever. That's like your 'pure tobacco'. Yes, some might actually enjoy a steak prepared like that, but not many would.

Now go do up that same cut of meat on the grill, over some nice hickory chips to give a good smoke flavor. That's your latakia.

Now go and do up that same cut of meat on the grill, with or without the hickory chips but with some seasoned salt on it. MMMmmmm! That's like a good aromatic.

Now let's talk about bad aromatics. That's where the topping is there to replace the taste of the crappy tobacco it's made from. You ever had turkey bacon or turkey sausage or any of those other turkey-based (or worse, soy based) abortions? That would be ground, pressed and formed turkey meat, replete with an unholy mix of artificial flavorings designed to make it taste like something totally different than what it is. That's your Mixture 79. Nasty! Although some actually enjoy that crap, I'm not one of them.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Put that steak in a sealed plastic bag before boiling! Then grill it quickly afterwards to sear the outside. You'll have the perfect steak. (Okay, nothing to do with your point, but it works!)


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

MarkC said:


> Put that steak in a sealed plastic bag before boiling! Then grill it quickly afterwards to sear the outside. You'll have the perfect steak. (Okay, nothing to do with your point, but it works!)


I've never done it with steak, but I have made some delicious sous vide pork tenderloin in almost the exact way you describe.


----------



## jco3rd (Apr 1, 2013)

MarkC said:


> Put that steak in a sealed plastic bag before boiling! Then grill it quickly afterwards to sear the outside. You'll have the perfect steak. (Okay, nothing to do with your point, but it works!)


I didn't realize the melting point of plastic was more than the boiling point of water. haha!

Zurg I love your analogy!


----------

